NISHA K.V Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the captioned writ petitions are intrinsically connected I propose to pass a common judgment. Writ petitions are basically challenging the removal of certain questions from the State Eligibility Test (for short SET), in view of ambiguity of the questions and thereby depriving marks to the petitioners consequent to which petitioners could not secure aggregate pass marks. Facts of the cases in brief are hereby recited.

(2.) Petitioner is a post graduate in Chemistry with B.Ed, qualified to appear for State Eligibility Test conducted by the 3rd respondent in June, 2015. The scheme of the examination is that, there are two papers with 120 questions each and the candidate has to secure 40% marks in each paper. However, for a pass the candidate also has to secure 48% marks in aggregate. According to the petitioner, she has secured 69 marks in paper -I and 48 marks in paper -II. The 3rd respondent thereafter published Ext.P4 corrected answer key excluding question No.101. The answer originally given to question No.101, was option 'B', which was the answer given by the petitioner. Due to the exclusion of question No.101, one mark has been reduced from the marks of the petitioner in paper -II and her mark was reduced to 47, which is not sufficient for a pass. The exclusion of question is against clause 2.4 of the prospectus issued by the 3rd respondent, which specifically states that, there shall be 120 questions carrying one mark each. It is also contended that as per clause 2.6, for each correct response the candidate will be awarded one mark in both papers. But, as per clause 14.2 the Director of the 3rd respondent is vested with powers to exclude the questions and answers from evaluation. Even though clause 14.2 empowers so, in case where answers are not correct or appropriate, there is nothing in the prospectus which deals with the consequences that follow such correction. That exclusion of the question results in arbitrary and unjust situation. Therefore, the said legal infirmities and injustice can only be cured either by granting mark to the candidate who gave the correct answer to the excluded question or by reducing the percentage of marks required for a pass in the concerned paper wherefrom the question is excluded. It is, in this back -drop, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a statement denying the allegations, claims and demands made by the petitioner. It is also contended that the valuation of answer script is done only after finalising the answer keys based on the complaints of the candidates regarding the answer keys published immediately after the test. The first published key is only provisional. The key is finalised only after considering the complaints of the candidates. According to the petitioner, valuation done on the basis of the corrected answer keys, petitioner secured only 47 marks for paper -II. What the petitioner had produced as Ext.P2 is only a copy of the question paper. The answer keys as given by the question paper setters are published immediately after the test, to provide the candidates an opportunity to verify the correctness of the answer keys and inform the Director their complaints, if any, regarding the questions or answer keys.